GameStop, Inc. v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.

Following an investigation into violations of the Secondhand Dealers Law (SDL), the People, by and through the District Attorneys of Riverside and Shasta Counties, filed an action pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., (Unfair Competition Law or UCL) to enjoin petitioner GameStop, Inc., (GameStop) against noncompliance. GameStop filed a motion to remove the action from the County of Riverside pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 394, claiming that the district attorney, as an official elected by the County of Riverside, was a local governmental entity. The trial court denied the motion, giving rise to this petition for writ of mandate by GameStop.

We issued an order to show cause why the relief prayed for should not be granted. After considering the arguments in the return, traverse, reply, and the briefs of amici curiae, 2 we deny the petition.

BACKGROUND

We base our opinion on the following operative facts from the return, the traverse, and the exhibits. 3

Following investigations by the Redding Police Department, Shasta District Attorney's Office, and law enforcement agencies in Riverside County, the People of the *876 State of California…